Pieces

Grotesque Chess uses all the pieces of Chess plus two more, known as the Equerry and Guard. All pieces from Chess move as in Chess, except that flexible castling is allowed and Pawns have two more promotion options. Just as the Queen is a compound of Rook and Bishop, the Guard is a compound of Rook and Knight, and the Equerry is a compound of Bishop and Knight. Together, these three pieces comprise all the compounds of two minor pieces.

Rules

Aside from differences in board, pieces, and setup, Grotesque Chess is played like FIDE Chess with the following differences:

When a King castles, it may move two or more spaces toward the Rook, and the Rook leaps over the King to the closest space the King has just passed over, so that King and Rook end up adjacent to each other. The usual castling conditions from Chess apply. A King may not castle from or through check, all spaces between the Rook and King must be empty, and neither piece may have moved before.

When a Pawn promotes, it may promote to a Knight, Bishop, Rook, Queen, Equerry, or Guard.

I think this is not such a great game. It is flawed by having opposing Bishops along the same diagonals, which makes it too easy for the Bishops to eliminate each other early in the game. Univers Chess and Ladorean Chess also share this flaw. Besides the problem with Bishop placement, it also places the Queens and Equerries too close to common diagonals, making it too easy for them to attack each other early in the game. Univers Chess and Ladorean Chess do not share this flaw, which makes them slightly better games. Schoolbook Chess and Embassy Chess share none of these flaws. Between these two, Schoolbook Chess seems to me to be the better game.

I am very sorry and apologize since my lack of signing my comment below has led to a misunderstanding. It was late, and I simply forgot.
My name is Bernhard Hermes, and I am not H.G.Muller, and I sometimes use signs like :-(
(And, it seems, I sometimes add unnecessary 's's to English verbs...)

You are completely off base with your accusations. Why would I wait 4 months to revivive an old discussion that I already was involved in and that died a natural death? That makes no sense. I always answer swiftly. :-) and ;-) are standard smilies. Millions of people use them. I might as well accuse you of every annmous post that ends with a perion after the last sentence...

'':-)'' is Muller's own characteristic notation, as for example Muller's Comment 25.October.2008 at ''Zillions and GC,'' using the same '':-)'' at the end. So in the last two immediate comments. H.G. Muller is holding conversation with himself, anonymously as ''__'' and then with the user identification, following closely. That is fine. I actually also slightly prefer Threads where I name the topic and make up to all Comments, like current ''Anand_Kramnik.'' The particular style as variety keeps direction if not always depth and clarity. Now credit Grotesque's using the year 1992 Falcon-initiated form of castling two or more over. The problem of course, discussed more mid-decade, is that really all of these on 8x10 are Carrera-Capablanca randomized set-ups. Somehow for the general chess public, it would be better if all like Grotesque were under one roof, from Duniho's, Trice's, Trenholme's, to Winther's several ''Carreras'' on 8x10. Suppose for example, a string of ''Rococos'' differed only in position of Swapper, Immobilizer as to which one is oppositely-cornered, and Chameleon and Withdrawer as to which sits next to King. It is self-evident they would all still be Rococo. It is obvious point by now for regulars, but I always try scaling my Comment in context to draw more interest from casual viewers. Also relevant is thread ''FatallyFlawed M/C,'' that Marshall and Cardinal are proven subpar pieces of historical interest mainly, and active designers pretty much omit them nowadays.